Thursday, August 11, 2005

What Will They Ban Next?

So according to this article, New York wants to prohibit menu items containing trans fats as an ingredient.

New York City wants restaurants to narrow their list of ingredients - and maybe some waistlines - by cutting out trans fats. The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene said the voluntary change could also help fight the city's biggest killer, heart disease.

To comply, chefs would have to dump many margarines and frying oils, and possibly reworking long-held recipes for baked goods.

Something about this really bothers me. I understand the New York ban on smoking in restaurants - secondhand smoke kills innocent bystanders as well. But making margarine illegal? I think that's a bit ridiculous. Adults should be able to have the choice to order french pastries or fried chicken at a restaurant, even if doing it too often might affect their health. Next they're going to ban the serving of red meat. Or maybe make restaurant patrons sign a waiver that they promise not to go swimming for an hour after their meal.

Speaking of bans, it seems the Saudi government is working in cahoots with the yeshivish/chassidish community on the whole cell phone ban thing. I started reading this article and started cracking up http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916890.

Just insert the world "ultra-orthodox" when you see "Saudi government".

Saturated fat is a hidden killer. When ordering a plate of French fries, most people already know that they've opted for an unhealthy choice. Having the freedom to make a bad choice is one of the luxuries of living in a free country. But when one orders an oatmeal and carrot muffin, for example, one assumes that this is a healthy choice, when in fact, if it's made with transfat (very likely since it is cheaper than healthy oils), it is unknowingly clogging your arteries. That's what this proposal is all about. Getting rid of hidden dangers. You, as all intelligent people, should hail such a move, not find fault with it.

They're not "making margarine illegal" nor are they not banning it. They're merely requesting that restaurants voluntarily stop using ingredients that have trans-fatty acids in them to protect the collective public health.

Given the significant mountains of data indicating how dangerous consumption of such fats are (and the ever-increasing number of obese and overweight Americans), I think it's akin to urging people not to smoke and not to use illegal substances becaue they're so acutely harmful to our health.

Granted, we don't want the government banning it entirely or telling us every single thing that's bad for our us. As Krum said, we're all adults and we can make our own decisions. But if you had the choice, wouldn't you rather eat in a restaurant that doesn't include harmful ingredients in its food? And if we can encourage more restaurants not to use it and help wean people off of it, why shouldn't we?

Granted that adults have the options to make choices. But can't governments make laws in order to protect children? I don't know the statistics, but if it turns out that children are ingesting a large percentage of their trans-fatty acids in restaurants, rather than homes, should they not be protected? Remember, in many communities, child obesity is almost as much a problem as ETS (environmental tobacco smoke).

Mom - come on - We all know the damage that these "hidden" ingredients cause. Wasn't that you I saw reading the ingredients on those "insert name of item" to see the fat/health/calorie content? Don't we all want to make an intelligent choice? How can we when we don't know what's in the food we are eating. Yes we are adults and yes we don't want to be told what to do - but we at least need the proper info to make intelligent choices. So yeh - tell me what evil is lurking in my food and let me decide if I'll eat it.